not THAT bad
Matthew Fluet
mfluet@intertrust.com
Tue, 26 Jun 2001 09:08:25 -0700 (PDT)
Also in the CHANGES file, I think you want 2001 for the first 9 entries.
> In the CHANGES file, for 2000-5-30, the bug that caused polymorphic equality
> to return true when it shouldn't have, you should explicitly say that it only
> did this if the constructor was unused or something. (I know that isn't
> quite right.) As is, it really looks like a much worse bug than it was (I
> think).
>
> In 2000-2-12, the match compiler problem, it isn't clear from the description
> if this is talking about a compile time speed-up or a run time speed-up.
> This should be made clear.
>
> In 2000-11-8, algebraic laws to the CPS shrinker, change
> specifically target to IntInf primitives
> to
> specifically targeted to IntInf primitives
> IntInf
>